https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781502 CESTAT held the seized foreign currency was not a notified item under s.123 Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove it was not from authorized sources. The appellant's declared lawful earnings abroad supported authorization; there was no evidence of smuggling. The AIU officer lacked jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency, and absolute confiscation was unwarranted. Penalty/prosecution was not justified on the material before the Tribunal. Appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:54:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781502 CESTAT held the seized foreign currency was not a notified item under s.123 Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove it was not from authorized sources. The appellant's declared lawful earnings abroad supported authorization; there was no evidence of smuggling. The AIU officer lacked jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency, and absolute confiscation was unwarranted. Penalty/prosecution was not justified on the material before the Tribunal. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781502